Peace and Conflict Studies
Volume 23 | Number 1
Article 4
3-30-2016
Peace Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Effects
of Ingroup Identification, Outgroup Trust and
Intergroup Forgiveness on Intergroup Contact
Melinda A. Leonard
University of Louisville, [email protected]
Branka Damjanovic
University of Louisville, [email protected]
Goran Simic
International University of Sarajevo, [email protected]
Gul Aldikacti Marshall
University of Louisville, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs
Part of the Multicultural Psychology Commons, Other International and Area Studies
Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons, and the Social Psychology and Interaction
Commons
Recommended Citation
Leonard, Melinda A.; Damjanovic, Branka; Simic, Goran; and Aldikacti Marshall, Gul (2016) "Peace Building in Bosnia and
Herzegovina: Effects of Ingroup Identification, Outgroup Trust and Intergroup Forgiveness on Intergroup Contact," Peace and Conflict
Studies: Vol. 23: No. 1, Article 4.
Available at: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol23/iss1/4
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the CAHSS
Journals at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Peace and
Conflict Studies by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
Peace Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Effects of Ingroup
Identification, Outgroup Trust and Intergroup Forgiveness on Intergroup
Contact
Abstract
The current study examines the effects of ingroup identification, outgroup trust, and intergroup forgiveness on
intergroup contact quantity in the diverse cities of Sarajevo and Tuzla in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A total of
455 individuals ranging in age from 14 to 102 self-reported as either Muslim, Roman Catholic, Orthodox
Christian, or Other completed a questionnaire. Analyses revealed that ingroup identification was significantly
and negatively correlated with intergroup contact quantity; however, ingroup identification was not
significantly correlated with outgroup trust or intergroup forgiveness. The comparison between groups
revealed significant group differences across all predictor and criterion variables. To confirm whether age or
community background had a moderating effect on predicting the relation between ingroup identification,
outgroup trust, and intergroup forgiveness on intergroup contact quantity, moderated regression analyses
were conducted. Results revealed community background, ingroup identification, and outgroup trust were all
significant contributors to the model; however, age and forgiveness were not. Taken as a whole, the entire
model accounted for approximately 21% of variability in intergroup contact quantity. The results from the
current study reinforce the supposition that the two cities of Sarajevo and Tuzla in Bosnia and Herzegovina
cannot move towards reconciliation without first understanding the effect that strong ingroup identification
has on mixing with the other diverse groups, and implementing proactive measures to enhance outgroup trust
and cross-community outreach. Implementing these measures in the two cities of Sarajevo and Tuzla, along
with other areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina, may improve future intergroup relations and move the country
closer to reconciliation and peace.
Keywords: Ingroup Identification, Outgroup Trust, Intergroup Forgiveness, Intergroup Contact
Author Bio(s)
Dr. Melinda Leonard is an Associate Professor and the Faculty Director of the International Service Learning
& Research Program (A&S short-term study abroad) in the Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences at
the University of Louisville. Her research and service learning interests focus on the social/cognitive
development of children and adults from communities transitioning from political/sectarian violence,
specifically, Northern Ireland and Bosnia and Herzegovina. She is interested in combining multicultural peace
studies and social/cognitive research to enhance personal, family, and community relations. She is specifically
interested in how cross-community engagement influences the psychosocial elements of “peace building” (i.e.,
in-group identification, intergroup forgiveness and trust, and mental health and well-being).
Branka Damjanović is a law student at Washington University in St. Louis. She earned her undergraduate
degree from the University of Louisville, majoring in English and Sociology with minors in Linguistics and
Political Science. She lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina until 1999, when her family was resettled in Louisville,
Kentucky. Her research interests stem from her personal background and she intends to use her legal training
to continue searching for insights on social issues in the hopes of ultimately working on public policy.
Dr. Goran Šimić is an Assistant Professor of Criminal law at the International University of Sarajevo. He is
the Founder and Director of the NGO: Transitional Justice Association in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He served
This article is available in Peace and Conflict Studies: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol23/iss1/4
as vice president of the BiH governmental working group which developed the transitional justice strategy for
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The strategy is a comprehensive framework for dealing with the legacy of human
rights violations and war crimes, to build the foundations of a peaceful future.
Dr. Gül Aldıkaçtı Marshall is an Associate Professor and the Director of Graduate Studies in the Department
of Sociology at University of Louisville. Her current research focuses on the dynamics of the relationship
between feminist grass-roots activism, the state, and supranational bodies. It highlights the significance of
transnational feminist activism in influencing gender policies both at national and supranational levels. She is
the author of Shaping Gender Policy in Turkey: Grassroots Women Activists, the European Union, and the
Turkish State (SUNY Press). Other publications examine secular and Islamist women’s movements,
volunteerism, domestic violence, and media coverage of gender policies.
This article is available in Peace and Conflict Studies: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol23/iss1/4
Peace Building in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Effects of Ingroup Identification,
Outgroup Trust and Forgiveness on Intergroup Contact
Dr. Melinda A. Leonard
Branka Damjanović
Dr. Goran Šimić
Dr. Gül Aldıkaçtı Marshall
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a young country still in the process of rebuilding itself after a
period of violent conflict. Politically, it has transitioned from Socialist Yugoslavia to an
internationally recognized, democratic state. During this transitional period, the country found
itself deeply entrenched in war from 1992-95, which was often presented to the international
community as the culmination of “ancient ethnic and religious hatreds” in the region
(Carmichael, 2006; Love, 2011). The depiction established by the media between ethnicity and
religion during and after the war made the terms appear to be interchangeable, and that religious
affiliation was the key distinguishing factor between the ethnic groups. While the depiction is
partially correct, it is also problematic. This depiction may lead people to conclude that it was
mainly a religiously-motivated conflict. However, ethnicity is a complex construct with the
potential to motivate diverse groups to conflict (Costalli & Moro, 2012). Thus, the current study
seeks to better understand the present-day intergroup relations in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
specifically, in the diverse cities of Sarajevo and Tuzla.
Conflicts between groups, particularly in new states, were very common throughout the
20th century (Wimmer & Min, 2006). More than half of all wars that occurred post 1945 are
attributed to ethnic conflict (Sambanis & Shayo 2013). Brubaker (2004) suggests that “ethnic
conflict” is more accurately described as “ethnicized or ethnically framed conflict” and contends
that it should not be viewed “as conflict between ethnic groups” (p. 9). While the participants
may be members of a particular ethnicity, he argues that groups are evoked by ethnopolitical
entrepreneurs and exist for the purpose of achieving certain actions.
Brubaker (2004) proposes that groups participating in ethnically framed conflict to be
studied by the processes of their reification (political, social, cultural, and psychological
construction) rather than as de facto entities. The groups themselves need to be regarded not as
stable categories but as fluid ones that are redefined through interactions with other groups as
well as social pressures. Furthermore, the process of establishing group solidarity and cohesion
amid such variable circumstances is vitally important to understanding the group because only
once a high level of groupness has been established can those groups be mobilized. This usually
requires the manipulation of categories as a foundation for group formation. Within social
categories there are rules for membership and there are characteristics which are expected of its
members, but the categories themselves are equally unstable and fluid (Fearon & Laitin, 2000;
Brubaker, 2009; Dyrstad, 2012).
In fact, it is violence that helps increase levels of groupness, meaning groupness can be a
result of conflict rather than its cause. The groups themselves are not the propagators of conflict;
organizations, which may be viewed as acting on behalf of a group, are the true protagonists
(Brubaker, 2004). In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the organizations were the political
parties in power that branded themselves by their ethnic identity (Fearon & Laitin, 2000).
Political elites contributed to inter-ethnic intolerance by manipulating media images (Sekulić,
Massey, & Hodson, 2006). Sekulić and colleagues state political elites also used ethnicity to
invoke groupness most often when political disagreements occurred between extremists and
moderates within the same ethnic group. Therefore, it can be inferred that violence is then used
as a strategy to garner more support for extremists, with a well-known example being former
President Milosevic on behalf of the Serbs.
Brubaker (2004) suggests that the violence in the former Yugoslavia “may have as much
or more to do with thuggery, warlordship, opportunistic looting and black-market profiteering
than with ethnicity” (p. 19). This implies the idea of Weber’s status groups (Barnes, 1992;
Stone, 2003; Sambanis & Shayo, 2013), where a group uses an easily identifiable characteristic
of another group – such as language or religion – as a pretext for their exclusion, in order to
profit from the redistribution of those goods and opportunities the other(s) are now excluded
from accessing. The status group itself must have its own way of life that is different from the
other group but common among its own group members. Weber (1947; 1961) also stressed that
status groups place restrictions on interactions with members of other groups. The current study
seeks to determine if the groups in Sarajevo and Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina are still
behaving as status groups, emphasizing religion as the characteristic for exclusion and
discouraging its members from interacting with the other groups.
Weber (1947; 1961) stresses that an ethnic group does not constitute a community; rather,
it merely facilitates other types of communal relationships. This is key to understanding how
religion has functioned in these conflicts. An important interpretation of Weber noted by Stone
(1995; 2003) is that belonging to a particular ethnicity is a resource that may be utilized by a
political community in order to facilitate the creation of a group identity on the basis of ethnicity.
Calhoun (1993) cites the example of the former Yugoslavia and the policy of ethnic cleansing as
an example of ethnic identity shaping political action. He maintains the creation of nationalism
from ethnicity merely requires the addition of a historical narrative to existing traditions, which
are then utilized by the political community for mobilization.
Brubaker (2004; 2009) also points out the cognitive dimension of ethnicity, in that it
exists as a perspective; specifically, that it comes with a frame of reference which includes
specific narratives and implicit categorizations. For this reason, it is important to study how
events are framed because that will influence how they will become part of the group narrative
and how future events should be interpreted, usually increasing the level of groupness. Here it is
important to note that, due to its nature, a high level of groupness does not sustain itself but tends
to decline in a process of what Weber and Heydebrand (1994) called “routinization,” where
everyday interests become the priority once again. Arguably, the current study seeks to measure
the level of groupness in the cities of Sarajevo and Tuzla based on a particularly salient category
that was used to develop groupness during the Bosnian conflict: religion. Continuing to
emphasize one’s religious community would be indicative of ongoing collective action to
maintain group boundaries to some extent.
The consideration of the political use of religion rather than religion itself as the cause of
the war has been urged by Love (2011) in her analysis of the situation in former Yugoslavia.
She argues that the political leaders sought to recreate their images as nationalists in order to
advance their political careers, and religion was incorporated into this new image in order to
appeal to, and subsequently mobilize, their group. She explains that religious identity is often
used to spread a conflict because it is easier to target than the underlying economic or political
factors, which are the true cause(s) of unrest and wholly non-religious. The use of religious
affiliation as the marker of group identity can also be found in Northern Ireland, where groups
were distinguished based on religion, yet the causes of the conflict were not in theology but in
the underlying political motivations that accompanied the interests of each group (Tam et al.,
2008).
Ingroup Identification
The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has many commonalities with the conflict in
Northern Ireland. While primordialist perspectives suggest that groups are in conflict due to
cultural differences assumed to be fixed and vital to the group’s identity, McGarry and O’Leary
(1995) found little support for this idea. Rather, their study found that people in Northern Ireland
believe that the cause of violence is found in political sources more so than in religious
differences. Once again, while religion may be the characteristic used to differentiate groups, it
is necessary to understand through empirical research whether these conflicts are about religion
or religious differences, or more significantly about how ingroup identification impacts whether
or not the groups interact with one another.
Ingroup identification was structured into Bosnia and Herzegovina’s post-war society
with the writings of the Dayton Peace Agreement (1995), also referred to as The General
Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The main political leaders of the
country were invited to Dayton, Ohio, to negotiate on the territory that would form the sovereign
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The result is a government where the ethnic divides are recognized
and subsequently institutionalized, as outlined in the Constitution with the statement “Bosniaks,
Croats, and Serbs as constituent peoples (along with Others)” (Dayton Peace Agreement). One
scholar noted that, “[I]t is observable that the concept of ‘constituent peoples’ containing
exclusive connotation of ‘non-constituent,’ per se, constitute discriminatory treatment against
those who are ‘non-constituent,’ and/or ‘others,’ citizens” (Seizovic, 2014a, pp. 20-21).
The country was divided into two entities, a Serb Republic (Republika Srpska) and the
Federation, as well as an independent Brcko District. Each entity essentially has its own
government, controls its own taxation policies, determines its own education standards, and has
the political power to engage in foreign affairs on its own accord (Rogan, 2000; McMahon &
Western, 2009; Weidmann, 2011). Politically, the citizens are encouraged to maintain their
group identity rather than to move past wartime divisions and view themselves as sharing a
common ingroup identity with their neighbors, such as the Bosnians and Herzegovinians. These
tendencies have been found to be obstructive to reconciliation efforts in other post-conflict
societies such as Chile and Northern Ireland (Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, Manzi, & Lewis, 2008);
and, it may be creating an additional obstacle for society in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well.
According to Majstorović and Turjačanin (2013), the ethnic distance that has been encouraged
by the elite for political purposes during post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina is associated with
high levels of psychological and social distance, meaning it does not aid in the improvement of
intergroup relations since it discourages contact between the groups.
Intergroup Contact Quantity
Intergroup contact is often a successful method by which intergroup relations may be
improved. The Contact Hypothesis proposed by Allport (1954) states that relations between
groups improve if group members engage in contact where members are perceived as having
equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and the support of authorities or customs.
Allport theorized that when these criteria were met, it would result in better relationships
between the groups. Pettigrew (1998) expanded upon Allport’s findings and added that the
contact must have “friendship potential.” He argues that this would improve certain effects, such
as learning about the outgroup, behavior modification as a result of contact, the building of
affective emotions through continued contact, and gaining deeper insight into your own ingroup.
Pettigrew (1998) stresses that cross-sectional analysis of contact is inadequate, time for crossgroup friendships to develop is essential, and, while repeated contact is preferable, the quality of
the contact is highly important in determining the success of the experience.
A similar finding was presented by Cehajic, Brown, and Castano (2008), who conducted
research in Sarajevo that utilized a sample of university students. They concluded that
intergroup contact needed to be of good quality in order to have a positive effect but it must also
be frequent. Contact quantity was also stressed in other intergroup studies, such as one in Britain
by Brown, Eller, Leeds, and Stace (2007). They reported that, by itself, quality of contact had no
significant effects on attitudes toward the outgroup, but regular and frequent contact was
necessary; and quality of contact was insufficient in positively changing attitudes toward an
outgroup unless it occurred frequently. The study also echoed Pettigrew’s (1998) findings in that
the effects of contact were more positive when the contact with one member of the outgroup was
successfully generalized to the entire outgroup. He states there are three strategies to enhance
generalization: decategorization, salient group categorization, and recategorization.
During intractable conflict, intergroup contact is hard to achieve because underlining
group differences become part of a sociopsychological infrastructure that creates a sense of
justness of one’s own group goals and even superiority over the other group (Bar Tal, 2007).
However, despite Bar Tal’s finding, intergroup contact may be vital because it has been shown to
rebuild trust. Continuous and consistent positive interactions and behaviors when in contact with
the other group are critical to promoting and sustaining trust between diverse groups (Tam,
Hewstone, Kenworthy, & Cairns, 2009) because it can help alter expectations about behaviors
exhibited by both groups (Moy & Ng, 1996).
Outgroup Trust
Trust is the psychosocial factor that allows individuals to interact with one another
without any perception of imminent threat but an expectation of cooperation without exploitation
(Tam et al., 2009). Their study found that a higher frequency of contact with an outgroup is
correlated with higher trust of that group. By its nature, trust is necessary for reconciliation
because it allows for positive intergroup relations (Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008; Tam et al.,
2009). However, Tam and colleagues report establishing trust can be especially difficult in an
atmosphere of conflict.
Furthermore, it has been reported that lasting peace requires the establishment of social
trust and actions that foster reconciliation (Cook, Hardin, & Levi, 2005; Hoogenboom & Vieille,
2009). Social trust is defined as the expectation that others will not cause us deliberate harm and
will even consider our best interests (Delhey & Newton, 2005). Overall, inter-group social trust
is low in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Whitt, 2010; O’Loughlin, 2010). O’Loughlin’s postwar study
reveals that existence or lack of trust is a significant factor in the establishment of inter-ethnic
friendships. According to Whitt (2010), Bosnia and Herzegovina has the least amount of interpersonal trust in Europe with a decline of almost 15 percent from a survey period incorporating
1996-1998 and 1999-2001. This suggests that even in the absence of physical conflict, the
citizens are having difficulty rebuilding trust. Whitt’s research also indicates that personal
experiences during the war did not have any effect on undermining inter-ethnic trust. Of the
study participants, 91.7 percent believed that caution should be exercised in interactions, a belief
that did not have any attachment to specific ethnic labels. The data showed that in every ethnic
group, ingroup trust was higher than outgroup trust. Any significant differentiations were not
attributed to a particular ethnic group but rather to the individual’s location and corresponding
population homogeneity. For example, Serbs living outside the homogenous Republika Srpska
were found to have higher levels of outgroup trust than Serbs living within the Republika Srpska,
and the same was found among Croats living in Siroki Brijeg as compared to Croats living
elsewhere. A possible explanation for this finding is that people learn to internalize the norms
found within their particular community, meaning people living in homogeneous surroundings
maintain their distance (Kunovich & Hodson, 2002).
Intergroup Forgiveness
The particular effect of outgroup trust which concerns the current study is its relationship
to intergroup forgiveness. Intergroup forgiveness has been described as a way to help groups in
conflict put the past behind them and to facilitate both public and private healing (Leonard,
Yung, & Cairns, 2015; Shriver & Shriver, 2008). Forgiveness is a psychosocial factor in
sustainable reconciliation efforts because the goal of forgiveness is the restoration of
relationships (Cehajic et al., 2008). Often, when in conflict, it is not so much the strength of
one’s religiosity but the strength of one’s ties to their community that predicts forgiveness
(Leonard et al., 2015).
The expectation that reconciliation will naturally occur in the absence of violence has
been reported to be incorrect (Myers, Hewstone, & Cairns, 2009). The example of Northern
Ireland applies once again, in that Myers and colleagues found that the signing of the Belfast
Agreement itself was insufficient in achieving reconciliation because forgiveness was identified
as an essential variable for successful reconciliation and the improvement of intergroup relations.
They recommend that reconciliation initiatives should aim to promote intergroup forgiveness
without placing excess emphasis on past transgressions, which may threaten individuals’ group
identities.
Therefore, the same could not be expected by the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement
(1995) for Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly with the previously discussed maintenance of
ethnic categories. While trust is positively associated with forgiveness, ingroup identification
has a negative relationship with forgiveness because it may be viewed as an act of disloyalty
toward the group (Cehajic et al., 2008). Yet, according to the Reconciliation Orientation Model
(Noor et al., 2008), intergroup forgiveness is the key precursor for reconciliation. Cehajic and
colleagues reported a negative correlation between the strength of an individual’s ingroup
identity with intergroup forgiveness. They suggest the unwillingness to forgive is either a way of
protecting the group from further injustice, or it is opposed because it is associated with
forgetting the past. Indeed, every July 11th in Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina marks the
anniversary of the genocide of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak men (Kerry, 2014). Recent variations
in public discourse have seen the usage of the slogan “never forgive, never forget” shift to the
usage of alternative slogans such as “never forget, never repeat,” or simply “never forget”
because it is important that people remember and know the truth. It may be that only once the
complete truth from all perspectives is known, no matter how painful, can those in Sarajevo and
Tuzla move closer to reconciliation.
The Current Study
The current study aims to add to the growing body of research on reconciliation in postwar society after a domestic conflict, specifically in the cities of Sarajevo and Tuzla in Bosnia
and Herzegovina. People are aware of the need for reconciliation, particularly the youth. In a
qualitative study conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, young adults reported they were more
concerned with building relationships between groups rather than learning about the factual
events from the past (Magill & Hamber, 2011). Relationships naturally require contact but there
are a variety of factors that influence what occurs when groups come together. Through the
analysis of survey responses collected from Sarajevo and Tuzla in 2014, nearly 20 years after the
signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement (1995), this study seeks to better understand the effects
of ingroup identification, outgroup trust, and intergroup forgiveness on intergroup contact
quantity. Specifically, the following relationships are expected: (1) negative correlations will
exist between ingroup identification and outgroup trust, intergroup forgiveness, and intergroup
contact; and (2) positive correlations will exist between outgroup trust, intergroup forgiveness,
and intergroup contact.
In addition to these correlations, it is hypothesized that community background will have
a moderating effect on the relationship between ingroup identification, outgroup trust, and
intergroup forgiveness on intergroup contact quantity, because the importance of staying loyal to
one’s group has been reported to reduce contact with the outgroup. Furthermore, due to
differences in war experiences between those born immediately preceding, and after, the conflict,
and those who lived through the violent conflict, age is hypothesized to also have a significant
moderating effect on these relationships.
Methods
Recruitment
The principal investigator (first author) received study approval from the University of
Louisville’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to subject recruitment. Individuals ranging
in age from 14 to 102 with a self-reported community background (based on religion) of either
Muslim, Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christian, and Other were recruited from the two cities of
Sarajevo and Tuzla. Two non-governmental organizations administered the surveys:
Transitional Justice Association in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, and Snaga Zene (Power of
Women), Tuzla. To ensure adequate power in our sample size, an a priori power analysis using
an alpha of .05, an effect size d of .5, and a total sample size of 504 (42 in each of the categories
of age and community background) revealed a power of .9862 to find a large effect (Faul,
Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). A total of 49 surveys were eliminated from analyses
because they did not contain responses to the questions relevant to this study (e.g., community
background, ingroup identification, outgroup trust, or intergroup forgiveness). Table 1
represents the demographic breakdown by community background of the final sample size of N
= 455.
Table 1
Demographics by Community Background
Variables
Age:
Adolescents
Emerging Adults
Adults
Elderly
Gender:
Male
Female
Birthplace:
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Croatia
Serbia
Other
Nationality:
Bosniak
Croat
Serb
Other
Neighborhood:
Mixed
Mainly Catholic
Mainly Orthodox
Mainly Muslim
Muslim
(n = 307)
Community Background
Roman
Orthodox
Catholic
Christian
(n = 93)
(n = 41)
Other
(n =13)
17
80
171
23
13
33
30
9
2
20
15
6
1
4
9
3
118
172
37
51
21
19
4
8
281
4
10
6
75
9
1
6
31
2
6
2
12
1
0
0
286
1
2
14
1
83
5
3
4
1
36
0
3
3
4
3
148
1
3
150
59
9
0
23
25
0
9
7
11
0
1
1
Data Collection Procedure
An IRB-approved preamble in the Bosnian language and signed by the principal
investigators was distributed to each person prior to survey completion in early 2014. The
preamble explained the study was about cross-community involvement in Bosnia and
Herzegovina and that participation was completely voluntary and confidential. Upon individual
agreement to participate, respondents from Sarajevo and Tuzla were provided with a copy of the
survey completion instructions and the survey, both in the Bosnian language. Surveys were
completed in a private setting. Survey completion lasted approximately 20 minutes. Research
personnel collected the completed survey and provided a short debriefing to each respondent.
Although respondents were thanked for their participation, they were not compensated.
Measures
The measures selected for the survey instrument consisted of the following predictor and
criterion variables.
Predictor Variables.
Ingroup identification was measured using the 5-item group identification scale (adapted
from Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, & Williams, 1986; Myers et al., 2009). Instructions
preceding the statements were, “Thinking about the religious community that you belong to,
please answer the following questions.” Respondents were asked to rate themselves on a 5-point
Likert-type scale as an individual who: (1) “considers your community important,” (2)
“identifies with your community,” (3) “feels strong ties with your community,” (4) “is glad to
belong to your community,” and (5) “sees yourself as belonging to your community.” Scores
were averaged to yield an ingroup identification index, with higher scores denoting higher in
group identification.
Outgroup trust was assessed using a 4-item outgroup trust scale (adapted from Cehajic et
al., 2008). Respondents were asked to rate each of the following statements on a scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree): (1) “The other communities cannot be trusted to deliver
on their promises” (R), (2) “I believe the other communities can be trusted on their promises,”
(3) “Despite the events that occurred during the war, I trust the other communities” (R), and (4)
“I believe my community cannot trust the other communities after everything they have done
during the war.” Items marked (R) indicate reverse scoring. Responses were averaged to form
an outgroup trust index; higher scores denoted greater outgroup trust.
Intergroup forgiveness was measured using a 7-item intergroup forgiveness scale
(adapted from Moeschberger, Dixon, Niens, & Cairns, 2005) with ratings ranging from 1
(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The scale included the statements: (1) “Forgiving the
other communities for past wrongs would be disloyal to my community” (R), (2) “My
community can only forgive members of the other communities when they have apologized for
past violence,” (3) “It is important that my community never forgets the wrongs done to us by
the other communities” (R), (4) “Only when the three communities of Bosnia and Herzegovina
learn to forgive each other can we be free of sectarian/political violence,” (5) “It is important that
my community never forgives the wrongs done to us by the other communities” (R), (6) “My
community should, as a group, seek forgiveness from the other communities for past violent
actions,” and (7) “My community has remained strong precisely because it has never forgiven
past wrongs committed by the other communities” (R). Items marked (R) indicate reverse
scoring. Scores were averaged to yield an intergroup forgiveness index with higher scores
denoting higher intergroup forgiveness.
Criterion Variable.
Intergroup contact quantity was measured using a 3-item scale (Hewstone, Cairns, Voci,
Hamberger, & Niens, 2006). The first item asked: “About how many of your friends are from
the other religious community?” Respondents were asked to answer using a 5-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 0 (none at all) to 4 (more than ten). The other two items were: “How often do
you visit the homes of friends who are from the other religious community?” and “How often do
these friends visit your home?” Ratings ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (every day). Scores for the
three items were summed and averaged to yield an overall intergroup contact quantity index. A
higher score denoted greater intergroup contact.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Preliminary analyses included Cronbach’s alphas to determine scale reliability on all the
predictor and criterion variables. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .61 (acceptable) to .97
(excellent): ingroup identification index = .76, outgroup trust = .73, intergroup forgiveness = .61,
and intergroup contact quantity = .97. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.
Pearson product-moment correlations (Table 2) were conducted to determine correlations
between variables. The data revealed that ingroup identification was significantly and negatively
correlated with intergroup contact quantity, as predicted. However, contrary to the hypothesis,
ingroup identification was not significantly correlated with outgroup trust or intergroup
forgiveness. These results are surprising because ingroup identification has been reported to
suppress forgiveness since it would be considered as an act of disloyalty to the group (Cehajic et
al., 2008) and ingroup identification is what determines contact, which influences trust (Tam et
al., 2009).
Table 2
Summary of Intercorrelations between Predictor and Criterion Variables
Variables
1
2
3
4
1. Ingroup Identification
-.004
.031
-.163**
2. Outgroup Trust
-.507**
.314**
.253**
3. Intergroup Forgiveness
--4. Intergroup Contact Quantity
** p < .01.
Additionally, a one-way MANOVA (Table 3) was conducted to compare whether group
differences existed independently across community background (Muslim, Roman Catholic,
Orthodox Christian, and Other) in the psychosocial elements of ingroup identification, outgroup
trust, intergroup forgiveness, and intergroup contact quantity.
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Differences Between Community Background
Variable
Ingroup
Identification
N
M (SD)
F(df)
p
Muslim
245
3.97 (.56)
5.57 (3, 353) < .001***
Roman Catholic
73
3.86 (.60)
Orthodox Christian
30
3.72 (.54)
Other
9
3.91 (.57)
Outgroup
Muslim
300
3.12 (.82)
5.78 (3, 439) < .001***
Trust
Roman Catholic
91
3.28 (.74)
Orthodox Christian
39
3.56 (.85)
Other
13
3.75 (.80)
Intergroup
Muslim
286
3.25 (.61)
14.37 (3, 416) < .001***
Forgiveness
Roman Catholic
85
3.64 (.44)
Orthodox Christian
37
3.59 (.45)
Other
12
3.74 (.49)
Intergroup
Muslim
297
2.43 (1.18)
15.08 (3, 434) < .001***
Contact
Roman Catholic
89
3.17 (1.13)
Quantity
Orthodox Christian
39
3.31 (1.33)
Other
13
2.69 (1.23)
Note. Scores on all variables ranged from 1 to 5 with higher scores denoting greater Ingroup
Identification, Outgroup Trust, Intergroup Forgiveness, and Intergroup Contact Quantity.
***p < .001.
The data revealed that ingroup identification was significantly and negatively correlated with
intergroup contact quantity, as predicted. However, contrary to the hypothesis, ingroup
identification was not significantly correlated with outgroup trust or intergroup forgiveness.
These results are surprising because ingroup identification has been reported to suppress
forgiveness since it would be considered as an act of disloyalty to the group (Cehajic et al., 2008)
and ingroup identification is what determines contact, which influences trust (Tam et al., 2009).
Additionally, the data supports existing literature that reports outgroup trust, intergroup
forgiveness, and intergroup contact quantity are all positively and significantly correlated to each
other. Furthermore, Table 3 represents the comparison between groups based on community
background, with significant group differences emerging across all predictor and criterion
variables.
Additional post hoc analyses were performed using the Scheffe’s method to identify
exactly where these group differences exist. The Scheffe’ test is customarily used with unequal
sample sizes to determine where the differences lie when conducting multiple comparisons
(Scheffe’, 1999). The following significant differences emerged: outgroup trust between the
Muslim and Orthodox communities (MD = -.43, SE = .14, p <.05), intergroup forgiveness
between Muslim and Orthodox communities (MD = -.33, SE = .10, p <.01) as well as between
the Muslims and Catholics (MD = -.39, SE = .07, p <.001), and contact quantity between the
Muslim and Orthodox communities (MD = -.87, SE = .20, p <.001) as well as between Muslim
and Catholic communities (MD = -.74, SE = .14, p <.001). No significant differences were
revealed between the Orthodox and Catholic communities.
Moderated Regression Analyses
To confirm whether age or community background had a moderating effect on the
relationship between ingroup identification, outgroup trust, and intergroup forgiveness on
intergroup contact quantity, moderated regression analyses were conducted. Prior to analyses,
predictor variables were centered to reduce multicollinearity among predictor variables (Aiken &
West, 1991). Dummy codes were created for the four levels of community background (Muslim,
Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christian, and Other) and the four levels of age (adolescents,
emerging adults, adults, and elderly).
The criterion variable (DV: intergroup contact quantity) and all predictor variables (IVs:
ingroup identification, outgroup trust, intergroup forgiveness, age, and community background)
were entered in Block 1 and accounted for significant variance, R2 = .199, F (5, 328) = 16.27, p
<.001. Specifically, inspection of the coefficients revealed that intergroup contact quantity was
associated negatively with ingroup identification, beta = -.143, t = -2.822, p < .01, associated
positively with outgroup trust, beta = .311, t = 5.307, p < .001, and associated positively with
community background, beta = .177, t = 3.327, p< .001. Contrary to our prediction, intergroup
forgiveness was not significantly correlated, beta = .049, t = .833, p > .05, nor was age, beta =
.088, t = 1.747, p > .05.
Post-hoc investigation included a step-wise regression analysis to determine possible
interactions. The criterion variable (DV: intergroup contact quantity) and the significant
predictor variables from the previous regression analysis (IVs: ingroup identification, outgroup
trust, and community background) were entered in Block 1 and accounted for significant
variance, R2 = .190, F (3, 339) = 26.57, p < .001. A series of possible interactions were then
entered in Block 2, as reported in Table 4. Although adding the interaction terms did not result
in a significant effect on the model, R2 = .208, F (7, 332) = 1.07, p > .05, the interaction between
centered ingroup identification and Catholic community background was significant, beta =
−.329, t = -2.02, p = .044, suggesting that community background moderated the relation
between ingroup identification and intergroup contact quantity at the Catholic level only. No
other interaction effects were significant. Taken as a whole, the entire model accounted for
approximately 21% of variability in intergroup contact quantity (Table 4).
Discussion
While not generalizable to the country overall, the survey data provides a starting point
for discussing current psychosocial elements of peacebuilding and reconciliation that impact
intergroup contact in the cities of Sarajevo and Tuzla in Bosnia and Herzegovina. From the
study data, it is evident that ingroup identification is generally strong for each community. This
reflects a strong tendency for those living in these two cities to identify with their group on the
basis of their religious community. This also suggests that the level of groupness continues to be
maintained nearly 20 years after the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement (1995). It is
possible that the new framework for the society, as outlined in the Dayton Peace Agreement,
influenced groupness by specifically mentioning it in the document, thereby not only
encouraging but also requiring group identification based on ethnicity to continue. The
redrawing of the territory affected the distribution of the population by accepting newly
ethnically homogenous areas and simultaneously giving those territories enough political power
to function somewhat independently within the state. This may have affected the relationships
between the people as well, encouraging the opinion that the groups can maintain a distance from
each other yet still function without requiring cooperation or interdependence. In terms of
routinization, it is possible that the new society, and the relations its structure encouraged, have
resulted in groupness itself being routinized, and that may be why there is a discrepancy between
what was expected and what the data reflects.
Of the respondents, the majority reported living in mixed neighborhoods across each
community background (Table 1). This is a hopeful sign, indicative of a willingness to live
alongside each other in Sarajevo and Tuzla. However, nearly one-half of the Muslim
respondents reported living in a homogenous neighborhood implying the existence of an
underlying desire to live amongst their own group. Living in close proximity to members of
one’s own group may provide a sense of security that aids in reducing fear and anxiety.
According to Pettigrew & Tropp (2006), intergroup contact avoidance is primarily caused by
intergroup anxiety. Homogenous living situations decrease opportunities for intergroup contact
for both young and old and ultimately perpetuate the conflict by contributing to the physical,
social, and emotional separation of the communities (Leonard et al., 2015).
A strong identification with an individual’s ingroup does not have to result in such
deliberate distancing. This has already been demonstrated by the amount of respondents living
in mixed neighborhoods. In other research findings specific to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cehajic
and colleagues (2008) found that the common ingroup of Bosnians largely overlapped with the
subgroup of Bosniaks, which resulted in a positive correlation between the two levels of
identification. Specifically, the authors showed that only a relative common ingroup
identification, over and above the subgroup identification, could effectively promote intergroup
forgiveness and decrease the social distance between groups. Regardless of these findings, our
hypothesis was supported in that ingroup identification was significantly and negatively
correlated with intergroup contact quantity, meaning stronger ingroup identification would
result in lower intergroup contact quantity.
The data revealed that group differences exist in regard to trust, forgiveness and contact
quantity, particularly between the Muslims and the other communities. There was a significant
negative group difference between the Muslim and Orthodox communities in regard to trust.
Forgiveness and contact quantity were also significant and negative between the Muslims and
the Catholics, as well as the Orthodox communities. Lingering tensions between the Muslim and
Orthodox communities may be explained by Serb aggression during the conflict, particularly in
Sarajevo where Serbian forces held the city under siege for years. No significant differences
existed between the Catholics and Orthodox communities on any of the variables—perhaps due
to the fact that the cities surveyed experienced less conflict between the Catholics and Orthodox
members, since most aggression was targeted toward the Muslims. This may explain the attitude
of the Muslim community toward interacting with the others, as reported just above.
It may also be a matter of being able to find similarities with the other group. Religion
innately bonds its members through shared traditions and beliefs, which may be why it is
sometimes used to mobilize groups as previously described. While Muslims come from an
Islamic background, the Catholics and Orthodox members are both Christian traditions, meaning
those groups may be able to find common ground and likeness more easily. These group
differences may eventually manifest themselves into noticeable tension. This is troubling
because the data demonstrates the largest represented group in the country is having difficult
interactions with the other communities on psychosocial variables that have been identified as
crucial in moving toward peace and reconciliation. Without addressing these obstacles, it is
difficult to imagine how these diverse communities will peacefully coexist in the long term, and
hard to fathom if the society will be able to prosper.
Based on the moderated regression analyses, it is clear that community background is a
significant moderator in the relationship between ingroup identification and outgroup trust on
intergroup contact quantity, but only for the Catholic community. A possible explanation may
be that the Catholic community within these two cities feels a need to maintain its boundaries
because of its minority status within Bosnia and Herzegovina, accounting for 14.6 percent of the
population according to the preliminary results from the 2013 government census. With the
signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement (1995), the Orthodox community associated with the
Serbs was given the Republika Srpska, which is their own entity, government, and territory
within Bosnia and Herzegovina. Geographically, the Republika Srpska lies between the cities of
Sarajevo and Tuzla. Essentially, the Serbs achieved what the group had intended to achieve and
established a territory that is predominantly Serbian and somewhat autonomous, thereby losing
the inclination to feel threatened as a minority (since they have territory and power).
The rest of Bosnia and Herzegovina, called the Federation, was split into cantons that
were divided between the Catholic Croats and the Bosniaks. Based on the preliminary results
from the 2013 government census, the Bosniaks compose 48.4 percent. While they are not the
national majority, they are the largest group represented. The goals and aspirations of the Croat
group were not achieved as they were for the Serbs, and the ethnic composition of the cities
stresses their minority status, while the Dayton Peace Agreement (1995) requires them to share
political power in the Federation. This may have resulted in lingering levels of groupness and a
tendency toward social isolation which Catholic communities built through the maintenance of
social boundaries with the other communities. As a group in a society that shows signs of high
ingroup identification overall, there may be more of an emphasis on staying loyal to one’s
community background rather than being open for intergroup interaction, especially for the
Catholic community. Again, we suggest that this may be due to their minority status.
Although outgroup trust was a significant contributor to the model of predicting
intergroup contact quantity, intergroup forgiveness was not. This is a surprising finding given
the data reflects both strong outgroup trust and forgiveness indices for each community. As
previously stated, forgiveness was identified as an essential variable for successful reconciliation
and the improvement of intergroup relations (Myers et al., 2009). According to a qualitative
study conducted by Ajdukovič & Čorkalo Biruški (2004) in Vukovar, Croatia, the Croats want
Serbs to acknowledge their suffering, to show some remorse for the past crimes committed in
their name, and to help them reveal the truth about their missing family members. However, the
Serbs in Vukovar think they had nothing to do with the violence directed against the Croats
during the war and see no reason to show remorse or apologize for crimes they never committed,
much less seek forgiveness. It is possible that these thoughts expressed by the Serbs in Vukovar,
Croatia, do not apply to the Croats and Muslims in Sarajevo and Tuzla. This may suggest that
the restoration of intergroup relationships in Sarajevo and Tuzla does not require one to forgive
another from the outgroup, but rather, trust in their outgroup neighbors is much more important
for intergroup contact to improve.
It was also surprising that age did not have a significant moderating effect, suggesting
that living during the conflict does not influence one’s willingness for intergroup contact. This
may suggest that the narrative of the conflict is shared by the community regardless of age and
passed down to the younger generation. Once again, identifying with one’s community appears
to be important in daily interactions. This may provide further evidence that the reconciliation
process has stalled in Sarajevo and Tuzla. Overall, even though nearly 20 years have passed
since the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement (1995), and an official end of the war was
declared, the cities of Sarajevo and Tuzla remain in a state of negative peace (absence of war)
with much work to be done in regard to reconciliation.
Limitations
A limitation in questionnaire research is the risk of response bias, which has been defined
as a tendency to respond to a survey question on the basis of something other than the actual
content of the question (Paulhus, 1991). The respondent may be answering in a socially
desirable way on the basis of expectations, for example, or other items on the questionnaire may
have influenced the interpretation of a question. This may have had a negative impact on the
survey results, specifically in the area of intergroup forgiveness. Therefore, possible response
bias may have interfered with our ability to report that forgiveness was indeed an essential
variable for successful reconciliation and the improvement of intergroup relations.
Similarly, the use of convenience samples brings forth additional considerations.
Respondents were recruited through two non-governmental organizations in Sarajevo and Tuzla,
which reach a specific subset of the overall population. Their beliefs may have influenced their
attitudes and questionnaire responses in a distinct way. For example, respondents recruited
through the Transitional Justice Association in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo most likely
believe and support the mission of the organization, while other citizens may view the concept of
transitional justice in an unfavorable way. More broadly, people involved in non-governmental
organizations clearly believe in a need for overall civic engagement and improved intergroup
relations; whereas, others may not. It is important to note that both organizations in Sarajevo and
Tuzla are inclusive and accepting of diverse groups, and those associated with them are
motivated to participate based on a desire to improve society overall, rather than focusing on one
group over the other. Our findings might not have been as significant had we administered the
survey through civic groups other than the two NGOs: Transitional Justice Association in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, and Snaga Zene, Tuzla.
Additionally, the cities in which surveys were distributed were not representative of the
entire population. Sarajevo and Tuzla are both large cities in central Bosnia and Herzegovina.
While both have been praised for their multiethnic composition, both are predominantly Muslim.
In 1991, the ethnic composition of Sarajevo was 49.3 percent Bosniak, which increased to 78.3
percent in 1998, post-war (Anonymous, 2010a). Tuzla was considered free territory during the
war and many Bosniaks fled to the city for safety, which may explain its present Bosniak
majority of 52.6 percent (Anonymous, 2010b). This is significant in that non-Bosniak
respondents may have been aware of their ethnic minority status which may have influenced
their responses in the same way that responses of Bosniaks may have been influenced by their
majority status. As such, we cannot be certain of the influence this may have contributed to the
survey results.
Implications and Conclusions
The data reports the current struggle of Sarajevo and Tuzla on their path to post-war
reconciliation. Examining the psychosocial variables of ingroup identification, outgroup trust
and forgiveness, and intergroup contact quantity, it is clear that strong identification with one’s
community negatively influences contact with other groups, which may not allow unity between
groups to emerge.
In other research, it was found that 50 percent of the participants wanted friends from
different nationalities; although, 41 percent admitted that their friends were of the same ethnic
group (O’Loughlin, 2010). This indicates that people, to some degree, do see a necessity to mix,
but are unable to break through the social boundaries that prevent the type of contact necessary
for reconciliation to be achieved. As stated by Leonard and colleagues (2015) regarding their
work in Northern Ireland (which may also be applied to this study in Bosnia and Herzegovina),
“the conflict has become much less visible in the traditional ways many view conflict, such as
physical violence. Yet, it appears that the conflict continues to manifest itself in the daily lives
of individuals through social interactions and environments” (p. 165). This implies the findings
between Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland after the signing of the Belfast
Agreement are similar to the findings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in that the Catholic, Muslim,
and Orthodox communities continue to experience social distancing and limited intergroup
contact nearly 20 years after the signing of their peace agreement (Dayton Peace Agreement,
1995). These findings may suggest to the international community that much more effort and
work beyond the signing of a document is needed to restore peace and reconciliation to a society
that is recovering from intergroup conflict.
While the criterion variable of interest for this study was intergroup contact quantity,
future studies may also examine intergroup contact quality, because contact quality has been
shown to be significantly correlated to quantity of contact, outgroup attitudes, empathy, and
positive and negative action tendencies toward the outgroup (Lalljee, Tam, Hewstone, Laham, &
Lee, 2009). Pettigrew (1998) suggests that quality is what leads to friendship potential. Cehajic
and colleagues (2008) support this theory while adding that forgiveness is the restoration of
relationships. Additionally, according to a qualitative study conducted in Kosovo by
Andrighetto, Mari, Volpato, and Behluli (2012):
It is also noteworthy that our measure of extended contact did not require friendship
between ingroup and outgroup members, but simply positive intergroup contact. This
result appears relevant especially for highly charged intergroup settings, where people
may be reluctant to admit that a family member or friend has a friend who belongs to the
outgroup. (p. 523)
Another factor of interest may be how many opportunities the individuals from the cities
of Sarajevo and Tuzla have for contact with other groups varying in ethnicity, religion, and
social status, and the circumstances of those interactions. It seems an important yet lacking
concept that for improved intergroup relations in Sarajevo and Tuzla intergroup contact may be
necessary. Programs that support mixed interactions may need to be encouraged (Hewstone,
2009); although, it is unclear how many individuals would be willing to participate in such
programs. The results of a large-scale, cross-national study conducted in eight European
countries focused on secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact, “confirm the wider, and
potentially the most far-reaching effects of intergroup contact in fostering positive intergroup
relations, thus providing a powerful testament to the wider effectiveness of intergroup contact in
contributing to positive intergroup relations more generally” (Schmid, Hewstone, Küpper, Zick,
& Wagner, 2012, p. 48). The opportunities that these programs provide for contact with
members of the out-group and for friendship building has helped in the promotion of peace and
reconciliation in Northern Ireland (Leonard et al., 2015), and it may therefore be beneficial to
experiment with this idea in the cities of Sarajevo and Tuzla in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The results from the current study reinforce the supposition that the two cities of Sarajevo
and Tuzla in Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot significantly progress toward reconciliation without
first understanding the effect that strong ingroup identification has on present-day social
interactions. As a country, Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot continue to ignore the ethnic tensions
that persist because its society cannot prosper to its fullest potential while these social distances
are maintained. Our model emphasizes outgroup trust rather than intergroup forgiveness,
pointing to a potential area worthy of greater attention and focus. Although Bosnia and
Herzegovina saw many sides fighting each other, the cities surveyed were predominately
influenced by violent attacks on Bosniaks by the Serbs. The society must ask itself: what has
been done to restore the trust between those groups? It seems criminal trials and prison
sentences are not enough, possibly because it keeps people focused on the events of the past
while little is being done to move together toward a future. In that regard, it may not be so
difficult to understand why, in our study, age did not have a moderating effect when the entire
country continues to relive its troubled past even into the present.
Yet the long road ahead should not dismiss the progress that has been made nor the
resilience of the people themselves. While this study notes challenges, the research shows that
even despite the obstacles, there exists a willingness among the communities to live together.
This is not a society of ancient hatreds that cannot forgive; it is a society that has been
manipulated by its political elites and now requires significant, proactive efforts to address its
past in a way that rebuilds outgroup trust and intergroup relations. Cross-community outreach
measures may be one way to enhance intergroup contact and outgroup trust. However, this study
also suggests that perhaps there is no one model to fit every intergroup conflict situation but
rather that the groups themselves need to be given an opportunity to express which psychosocial
factors are most important and may be currently missing within their particular society. The
history and the suffering are unique in every location of intergroup conflict, but measures beyond
peace agreements seem to be necessary in all (Lederach, 2005). By definition, reconciliation
requires restoration of relations, and while that does not seem to progress far when left to its own
devices, focused programs on relevant psychosocial factors would be expected to yield positive
results. Reconciliation will not happen on its own, but that does not mean reconciliation and
continued peacebuilding is not possible in the two cities of Sarajevo and Tuzla, along with other
areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
References
Anonymous. (2010a). Demography. Retrieved from: http://www.sarajevo.ba/en/
stream.php?kat=142
Anonymous. (2010b). About Tuzla. Retrieved from: http://www.sportizdravlje.
ftos.untz.ba/tuzla.html
Aiken, L.S. & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ajdukovič, D. & Dinka Čorkalo Biruški. (2004). Trust and betrayal in war. In E. Stover & H.M.
Weinstein (Eds.), My neighbor, my enemy: Justice and community in the aftermath of
mass atrocity (pp. 287-302). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Andrighetto, L., Mari, S., Volpato, C., & Behluli, B. (2012). Reducing competitive victimhood
in Kosovo: The role of extended contact and common ingroup identity. Political
Psychology, 33(4), 513-529. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00887.x
Bar Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American
Behavioral Scientist, 50(11), 1430-1453. doi: 10.1177/0002764207302462
Barnes, B. (1992). Status groups and collective action. Sociology 26(2), 259-270.
doi:10.1177/0038038592026002008
Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining intergroup
differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59,
273-286. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1986.tb00230.x
Brown, R., Eller, A., Leeds, S., & Stace, K. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes:
A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 273-286.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.384
Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brubaker, R. (2009). Ethnicity, race, and nationalism. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 21-42.
doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115916
Calhoun, C. (1993). Nationalism & ethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 211-239.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083387
Carmichael, C. (2006). Violence and ethnic boundary maintenance in Bosnia in the 1990s.
Journal of Genocide Research, 8(3), 283-293. doi:10.1080/14623520600949999
Cehajic, S., Brown, R., & Castano, E. (2008). Forgive and forget? Antecedents and
consequences of intergroup forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political
Psychology, 29(3), 351-367. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00634.x
Cook, K.S., Hardin, R. & Levi, M. (2005). Cooperation without trust? New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Costalli, S., & Moro, F.N. (2012). Ethnicity and strategy in the Bosnian civil war--Explanations
for the severity of violence in Bosnian municipalities. Journal of Peace Research, 49(6),
801-815. doi:10.1177/0022343312453593
Dayton Peace Agreement, General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
21 November 1995, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3de495c34.html
[accessed 10 November 2014]
Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: Global pattern
or Nordic exceptionalism? European Sociological Review, 21(4), 311-327.
doi:10.1093/esr/jci022
Dyrstad, K. (2012). After ethnic civil war ethno-nationalism in the Western Balkans. Journal of
Peace Research, 49(6), 817-831. doi:10.1177/0022343312439202
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.G. (2009). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39,175-191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
Fearon, J.D., & Laitin, D.D. (2000). Violence and the social construction of ethnic identity.
International Organization, 54(4), 845-877. doi:10.1162/002081800551398
Hewstone, M. (2009). Living apart, living together? The role of intergroup contact in social
integration. Proceedings of the British Academy, 162, 256-58.
doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197264584.003.0009
Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Hamberger, J., & Niens, U. (2006). Intergroup contact,
forgiveness, and experience of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social
Issues, 62(1), 99-120. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00441.x
Hoogenbooom, D., & Vieille, S. (2009). Rebuilding social fabric in failed states: Examining
transitional justice in Bosnia. Human Rights Review, 11, 183-198. doi:10.1007/s12142009-0129-z
Kerry, J. (2014). 19th Anniversary of the Srebrenica Genocide. Retrieved from:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/229178.htm
Kunovich, R., & Hodson, R. (2002). Ethnic diversity, segregation and inequality: A structural
model of ethnic prejudice in Bosnia and Croatia. Sociological Quarterly, 43(2), 185-209.
doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2002.tb00046.x
Lalljee, M., Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Laham, S., & Lee, J. (2009). Unconditional respect for
persons and the prediction of intergroup action tendencies. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 39, 666-83. doi:10.1002/2jsp.564
Lederach, J.P. (2005). The moral imagination: The art and soul of building peace. Oxford, MA:
Oxford University Press.
Leonard, M.A., Yung, S.M., & Cairns, E. (2015). Predicting intergroup forgiveness from ingroup identification and collective guilt in adolescent and adult affiliates of a Northern
Irish cross-community organization. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,
21(2), 155-167. doi:10.1037/pac0000055
Love, M.C. (2011). God and global governance: Resurgent religion in world politics. In Beyond
Sovereignty (pp. 170-214). Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Magill, C., & Hamber, B. (2011). If they don’t start listening to us, the future is going to look the
same as the past: Young people and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Youth & Society, 43(2), 509-527. doi:10.1177/0044118X10383644
Majstorović, D. & Turjačanin, V. (2013). Youth ethnic and national identity in Bosnia and
Herzegovina: Social science approaches. New York, NY: Pelgrave Macmillan.
McMahon, P. C., & Western, J. (2009). The death of Dayton: How to stop Bosnia from falling
apart. Foreign Affairs, 88(5), 69-83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20699644
McGarry, J., & O’Leary, B. (1995). Explaining Northern Ireland: Broken images. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Moeschberger, S.L., Dixon, D.N., Niens, U., & Cairns, E. (2005). Forgiveness in Northern
Ireland: A model for peace in the midst of the “troubles”. Peace and Conflict: Journal of
Peace Psychology, 11(2), 199-214. doi:10.1207/s15327949pac1102_5
Moy, J. & Ng, S.H. (1996). Expectation of outgroup behavior: Can you trust the
outgroup? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(2), 333-340. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199603)26:2<333::AID-EJSP747>3.0.CO;2-1
Myers, E., Hewstone, M., & Cairns, E. (2009). Impact of conflict on mental health in Northern
Ireland: The mediating role of intergroup forgiveness and collective guilt. Political
Psychology, 30(2), 269-290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00691.x
Noor, M., Brown, R., Gonzalez, R., Manzi, J., & Lewis, C. A. (2008). On positive psychological
outcomes: What helps groups with a history of conflict to forgive and reconcile with each
other? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 819-832.
doi:10.1177/0146167208315555
Noor, M., Brown, R. & Prentice, G. (2008) Prospects for intergroup reconciliation: Socialpsychological predictors of intergroup forgiveness and reparation in Northern Ireland and
Chile. In A. Nadler, T.E. Malloy, & J.D. Fisher (Eds.), The social psychology of
intergroup reconciliation: From violent conflict to peaceful coexistence (pp. 97–114).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
O’Loughlin, J. (2010). Inter-ethnic friendships in post-war Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Ethnicities, 10(1), 26-54. doi:10.1177/1468796809354153
Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response biases. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, L.
Wrightsman, & F. Andrews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological
attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-5902410.50006-X
Pettigrew, T. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Pettigrew, T.F., & Tropp, L.R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Rogan, J. (2000). Facilitating local multiethnic governance in postwar Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In Managing Multiethnic Local Communities in the Countries of Former Yugoslavia (pp.
183-206). Budapest, Hungary: LGI/OSI.
Sambanis, N., & Shayo, M. (2013). Social identification and ethnic conflict. American Political
Science Review, 107(02), 294-325. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055413000038
Scheffé, H. (1999). The analysis of variance. New York: Wiley.
Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Küpper, B., Zick, A., & Wagner, U. (2012). Secondary transfer
effects of intergroup contact: A cross-national comparison in Europe. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 75(1), 28-51. doi: 10.1177/0190272511430235
Sekulić, D., Massey, G., & Hodson, R. (2006). Ethnic intolerance and ethnic conflict in the
dissolution of Yugoslavia. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(5), 797-827.
doi:10.1080/01419870600814247
Seizovic, Z. (2014a). Constituent peoples and constitutional changes, 2nd updated edition.
Sarajevo: Dobra knjiga.
Shriver, D.W., & Shriver, P.L. (2008). Something like forgiveness: Healing in Northern Ireland.
The Christian Century, 125(6), 11-12.
Stone, J. (1995). Race, ethnicity and the Weberian legacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 38(3),
391-400. doi:10.1177/0002764295038003003
Stone, J. (2003). Max Weber on race, ethnicity, and nationalism. In J. Stone & R. Dennis (Eds.),
Race and ethnicity: Comparative and theoretical approaches (pp. 28-42). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., & Cairns, E. (2009). Intergroup trust in Northern Ireland.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(1), 45-59.
doi:10.1177/0146167208325004
Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Cairns, E., Marinetti, C., Geddes, L., & Parkinson, B.
(2008). Post conflict reconciliation: Intergroup forgiveness and implicit biases in
Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 303-320.
Weber, M. (1961). Ethnic groups. In T. Parsons, E. Shils, K. Naegele & J. Pitts (Eds.), Theories
of society: Foundations of modern sociological theory (Vol. 1, pp. 305-309). New York,
NY: Free Press of Glencoe, Inc. (Original work published in 1947.)
Weber, M., & Heydebrand, W. V. (1994). Sociological writings. New York, NY: Continuum.
Weidmann, N. B. (2011). Violence “from above” or “from below”? The role of ethnicity in
Bosnia’s civil war. The Journal of Politics, 73(04), 1178-1190.
doi:10.1017/s0022381611000831
Whitt, S. (2010). Institutions and ethnic trust: Evidence from Bosnia. Europe-Asia Studies, 62(2),
271-292. doi:10.1080/09668130903506839
Wimmer, A., & Min, B. (2006). From empire to nation-state: Explaining wars in the modern
world, 1816–2001. American Sociological Review, 71(6), 867-897. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472435